*1 EMPLOYERS DE LEON v. TEXAS
INS. ASS’N. Texas, Appeals of
Court of Civil Antonio.
San
Rehearing 11, 1942. March Denied Morris, Antonio, of San G. Woodson
appellant. Groce, all Eskridge & Groce and Walter Antonio, appellee. of San NORVELL, Justice. (cid:127) Appellee moves dismissal of ground bond
upon the
prescribed by
the time
was not-
within
Article
Vernon’s Ann.Civ.Stats.
place
proceedings here mentioned took
All
September
during
year 1941 and before
year. The Texas Rules of
1st of
have
to the case
Procedurе
upon to construe
we are not called
with Rule
in connection
from
mentioned.
Article
is taken
judgment of the trial court was rеn-
thereto,
February 13th. Prior
dered on
6th, appellant
had filed a motion
bearing
An
for mistrial.
order
overruling this
transcript.
pears
*2
575
his mo-
аppellant filed
On March 10th
declares the
upon
decision of the law
the
overruling
The order
tion for new trial.
matters at issue.”
Aрril 8th.
this motion
rendered on
was
Since,
definition,
the above
the
May
appeal
The
8th.
bond was filed on
date of the
be,
rendition
judgmеnt may
of a
is,
and often
a different date from the date
mistrial had “no
The motion for
upon which
judgment
upon
the
is entered
trial,
motion
effect whatever as a
for new
the
court,
minutes of the
or a different date
for
filed before
the reason that same wаs
upon
from the date
judge signs
which the
ren
judgment
the
court was
of the trial
form of
entry upon
decree preparatory to
Cоr
dered.”
Bond
National Consolidated
the
(if
procedure
minutes
such
em-
236,
132
poration v.
S.W.
134 Tex.
ployed), it
proper
and in accordance with
851,
fact, the mo-
2d
852.
a matter of
As
'
practice
recommended
to recite in the de-
purport
did not
tion
on March 10th
cree the date of its rendition.
for mis
to
the motion
be an amendment of
twenty days prior there
trial filed more than
judgment
befоre us contains
to,
February
were dis
on
6th. Both motions
therefore,
recitation,
this
“It is
on
13th
this
posed
by separate
of
orders.
day
194.1,
February,
Ordered,
of
Adjudged
by
and Decreed
the Court” etc. This recita
trial of March
for new
The motion
tion is tantamount to a
that
declaration
the
days
the
ten
after
filed within
10th was not
judgment
13,
February
rendered on
was
13th,
February
judgment on
rendition of
1941,
subject
by
and is not
to attaсk
affi
2092,
29,
by
Vernon’s
required
Art.
as
§
Singer
davits. Gibson v.
Machine
Sewing
showing
of
In an absence
Ann.Civ.Stats.
Co.,
633,
Court;
145
by
S.W.
this
State v.
disposed
and
court entertained
trial
Martin,
Civ.App.,
Tex.
to omissions
mission of the cause. it is Rule No. R.C.P. Under party, appellant, to see duty of an properly transcript the record is authority and, opinion, our prepared, after sub corrections of record to allow to per not be exercised so as should mission allеged inac relating to alterations mit curacies, or of which the omissions defects or correction party seeking the alteration prior to the submission of had notice pointed out, case, as appeal. In judg the record showed fact was rendered on Febru appealed from forcibly appel called to ary prior to submission lant’s attention appeal by motion to dismiss the sought predicated upon the recital now sup position Our here corrected. ported Bond Cor by Nаtional Consolidated App., poration Tex.Civ. 280; Id., Tex. Notwithstanding the fact we are opinion that under authorities properly dismissеd appeal has been been shown which reason has sufficient aside, setting justify said order our examined nevertheless we’ havе are of no reversi- brief and Appellant’s therein. error is disclosed ble jury answers of contention conflicting. In view the are decision in Traders and General Ross, Company v. Insurance it that there is no 117 S.W.2d merit in the
Appellant’s for rehearing is over-
ruled.